Dr. Brian

btt

Okay, let me interject. Since one of the main objectives of the US (and German) halftrack was to transport an infantry squad around, why on earth would the anyone make a halftrack that would not accomplish this mission, and break up a squad? If you want to investigate, look at the TO&E for armored infantry in an U.S. armored division. It should be obvious, and answer all your questions, either pro or con. It'll be obvious to infer the correct answer when 3 halftracks were standard TO&E for a platoon. Likewise, if the number was 6 halftracks, the answer is just as obvious. See what they actually practiced IN THE FIELD. I'm placing my bets on 1 halftrack per squad. I see no reason why they weren't crammed in there. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Hey! Will CM2 let us pile two German infantry Squads onto MKIIIh's? I mean come-on...that would be realistic [This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 01-01-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I count 20 non-crew members on that! But, that's only on the photographed side. It's possible there are 4-6 more men on the other side! ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

btt

Funny, I thought they were weak BEFORE the new patch. I haven't used any of the beta patches yet, but I think these pill boxes are indeed weak. Like you, all it takes is maybe 3-4 rounds to blow a wooden PB, and 4-6 for a concrete PB. Not much for the guys inside to day, but take the death slugs up the wazoo. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! [This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 12-31-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom: Remember, even by 1945 the Japanese still had a hard time knocking out Sherman tanks!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good God man! This alone would make me want to play PTO. Where Shermans are the KING of the battlefield. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurtz: It's because you play with 1.05. The change was made in one of the beta versions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep, I'm with you. Just want to say that the 15 ammo doesn't really bother me. Crews are pretty weak anyway and to put them into harms way is costly anyway, but, just in case, I may want to. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Cool stuff Jasper. Thanks for the great info. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Major Tom, Some points are well taken, and for the most part, you are right. However, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom: Before and after this period one side invariably had overwhelming numbers and quality, deciding virtually every tactical scenario before it started. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So were the Germans in 1944. It wasn't a question of "if." It was only a matter of "when." Moreover, don't forget, there are scenarios in CM, where a side that is overwhelmed (I forgot the name of it right now), can still WIN the scenario. In fact, most scenarios are one side defending, and getting BOOTED off a hill, or town. No different, don't you agree? Not every scenario is an "equal" meeting engagement. As you yourself said, one side had superiority. Nevertheless, that's the whole idea of warfare: to bring as much firepower to bear as possible on your enemy's weakest point. The same would hold true in PTO, as it does in ETO with CM right now. If you *think* about it, PTO scenarios would be no different. However, the tactical challenges WOULD be different. Jungle, Kunai, Palm Trees, Beaches, Coral Reefs, Land Craft, Naval Fire, the actual opportunity to use FT teams (good God man, this alone would be worth it). I for one, would welcome the opportunity to expand my tactical experience in PTO terrain. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

I can't think of a 105mm AP round being listed anywhere. Maybe it was a canister round? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurtz: Since the change was made to obstruct "gamey" use of crews it seemed logical (at least to me ) that the change should be made to the gun crews as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not sure about the gun crews, but, I've noticed that my vehicle crews do come out loaded with 15 ammo points. However, this does not bother me, and I like to use them as what you term "gamey." For me, just the fact that they have no real firepower, and their elimination would cost me dearly in points, would be enough to keep me from using them a lot of the times. However, in desperate times… desperate measures are required to win the game. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Actually, PTO would ROCK. Even in ASL, it is a favorite over the ETO for many. One of those passions. I guess, after YEARS and YEARS of ETO, it is refreshing to a grognard like me. I would love to see PTO. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

I would think that some of the crews that bail out, would have some ammo that varies. For example, a crew that bails from a burning wreck may have low ammo, or 1 or 2 points. However, one that bails from a knocked out AFV may get some more ammo. This type of variant would reflect the haste required just to get out of a brew up, while some ammo would be like, "Oh crap, we gotta get out of here. Let me grab my gun and SOME ammo since it is still a battlefield out there, and they'll be shooting at me." My $0.02 on it. (please note, I haven't used the beta yet, I prefer to wait till most bugs are ironed out.) [This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 12-28-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: How is the general moral calculated, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This sounds interesting. What do you mean by this? In what context? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: In Combat Mission, once ONE unit establishes visual contact, every unit in the game INSTANTLY establishes visual contact. Even if the enemy unit is not in LOS, was spotted by a 1 man sharpshooter only, or is over 2000m away. C3 aspects doesn't even factor in because the spotting already established complete, instant information before any treatment of C3 can be simulated.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Another interesting thought/idea popped into my mind. Imagine the repercussions to the computer opponent's tactical subroutines when/if relative spotting is/can be implemented? Consider that now, when the "computer is thinking" its actions are based on absolute spotting (which is only fair, since so is the human). I can't even begin to imagine the algorithmic code for "proper" (or even decent) tactical decisions. If anything, this is clearly a case for heuristic reasoning on part of the programmer. If BTS can pull this off (and by reading, I think this is a MAJOR, yet worthwhile, undertaking) with an expert system, I'll buy them a six pack. I guess, this may not even be an issue since the computer, even though the unit can't target, it still 'knows" the unit is there, just like the human. Okay, I just went in a circle, and talked myself out of it. Guess it won't be a problem after all, and current algorithmic code will be adequate. Sorry to take up bandwidth on that. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! [This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 12-28-2000).]

So far, I've been soaking up all this great information and discussion. So, thanks to all of you that have participated. However, to throw a wrench into the system with one of the examples above… Squad and tank move side by side. Enemy MG opens up, and is spotted by the friendly AFV. ATG opens up and is spotted by the squad. However, I (the player) place an "area fire" marker from the friendly AFV onto the ATG even though I don't "see" the AT Gun. Does this bother anyone? Thoughts appreciated. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Please explain why everyone ... blah, blah, blah....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because the holier than thou attitudes of people that have to say do a search are just flat out inconsiderate... and obnoxious. "Why on earth" (as you put it) would anyone want to filter down 10,000 + posts into 100+ topics, and then go through 100 topics is beyond me, when there are people GENEROUS enough with their time to help avoid wasting time... which is what I'm doing now by responding to your post. Let's try to stop, and get along. No need for your initial harrassement and continuing harrassment. My $0.02. Oh, and for your information, I just went back a while ago, and read some of the information. Much of it was good, but a lot of it was dribble as well, which, sadly, will happen to this thread. Please lock this up. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

In the world of ASL, we use R.O.A.R, which is an internet automated reporting record for scenarios. I can find out how many times it's been played, and get a "relative" play balance as to who won. It's not the best system in the world, as any information of this type can be skewed. However, is there something similar in CM? What scenarios are the best balanced? Which are the dogs? Is there somewhere to report wins/losses for each scenario? Etc. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumbo: I'm also certain that CM2 is something that BTS is just itching go get finished. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe they can keep working on CM2 till the last quarter of 2001, and ship it just in time for Christmas 2001? It'd be a nice present next year! ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Steve, thanks for all the great posts. Very insightful as to how CM and Gun development was designed, etc. Your commnets a GREATLY appreciated. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Just because you frame it with a knowing attitude doesn't make it any less lazy or parasitic. All the effort of two mouse clicks and the typing of "relative spotting" would have presented you with a mere 22 very relevant threads, one of which is the invaluable <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No sense responding to this any further. We can all just use the search since everything has been talked about, and no one should post anymore. Sheesh. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Ahh, thanks for the replies people. It "sounds" good. I had no idea that when a unit is spotted by one unit, it is "spotted" by all units. This in fact explains a lot about how the computer opponent acts too. I would expect that unit quality comes into play (both for spotter and spotted), intervening terrain, weather, distance to HQ units that have spotted enemy, etc. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Okay, someone explain this please? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Thanks for all the great input. First, Steve's suggestion to use "Ambush" doesn't work (as I said in my original post). As I said, an infantry unit can "trip" that 88 into firing when it crosses the bridge. Then, the 88 is toast. And when it is your only AT weapon, you're screwed as the AFVs go rolling by. Second, yes, I do think some of the fire power that is brought to bear on a Gun is too much. For example, the 50mm Light Mortar. Don't forget, these units had Gunshields. However, more important, ONLY A VERY NEAR MISS will likely damage a gun and take it out of action. In addition, please don't "assume" I'm employing Gun wrong. Considering that each situation (scenario) is different, their use will be dictated by the tactical situation. So when anyone asks me "how are you using them?" My answer is, "it depends on the scenario." What that means is I'm not stupid, and they are not sitting in the middle of the road looking down the bridge. Cover, fields of fire, enemy advance routes, your withdrawal routes, etc., are all examined and entertained. My only point is, that after playing CM for a while, I have noticed that Guns are way too fragile, and this I think is ahistorical. Especially the "Knock Out." Which brings me to "abandoned." Why on earth can a rallied crew take possession again and use the Gun or other support weapon? And, what on earth is this "relative" spotting???? Please explain? Thanks again for all your inputs! ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

Okay, first things first. I'm sure a search would find something on this. Thanks for the suggestion. Now, why on earth are Guns (AT, INF, AA, etc.) so easy to knock out? First, they are very easy to spot, and then, the one or two close placed shells from an AFV knocks the Gun out. Heck, even 50mm Light Mortars knock out the Guns. I've even seen a US squad throw snow balls at a German 88mm, and the German gun got knocked out! What gives? It's like they are worthless in this game. I can maybe get one shot or two off before they are eliminated. Doesn't matter how much cover they have. On another front, BTS should tweak the code somehow, that allows the Gun to fire at "Hard" targets or "Soft" targets only. For example, I have an AT Gun overlooking a bridge. If I unhide the Gun (or use ambush), and infantry run by, the Gun exposes it's position and fires at the infantry, and wham, 1 turn later, it's knocked out. Well, the Gun is my only AT unit, so I'm screwed. However, if I used the hide command, and armor runs across the bridge,it will be to late to shoot the next turn, as it runs out of my LOS. I see no reason why any unit can't be given "soft" or "hard" target orders, just like in Holdridges' TacOps. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! [This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 12-27-2000).]

I couldn't find it in "TFM." You mean: 1) they just happen to recombine by themselves? 2) What about during the setup phase? Thanks "I.F." Advance! ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!